• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels: Reports.....

sawdust said:
You have not learned the lesson grasshopper. The lesson was about the acceptance of tyranny and despots, not about the invasion of Iraq.
Click to expand...

Master, you have said that one day the student would be faster, quicker, stronger, smarter and wiser than the master and on that day, the student will become the master. That day has arrived.....

Clearly you have not yet learned that Iraq was not about tyranny, for if you knew you history, you would realize its never about tyranny with the US. Surely you should be aware of America's long history of befriending, supporting and even installing tyrants and despots. You, master, have not seen the slight of hand of the enemy.

United States support of authoritarian regimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You did not see the head fake of the previous president. He had people believing it was about tryranny, depots and weapons of mass destruction, when it was anything but. He had a much more cleaver scheme brewing that only the wise could see. He was diabolical in that his moves were about his presidential legacy. His neocon friends had convinced him that he could be remember as the great one: the one that changed the middle east forever, but turning out kings, shahs, sheiks and dictators and replacing them with the will of the people by starting a tsunami of democracy in Iraq.

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Policybrief20.pdf
Democracy and Demagoguery in the Middle East | Cato Institute
Islamist Terrorism and Democracy in the Middle East - Katerina Dalacoura - Google Books
The Real Reason for Bush's Invasion of Iraq Is a National Security Secret by Paul Craig Roberts on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent


This odd belief that Iraq, being one of the most educated, yet most repressed of the middle eastern countries would suddenly embrace democracy... and this it would be so successful that dictators, kingdoms and tyrants would give way to the will of the people. Though noble; it was terribly naive. Instead, the hornets nest was kicked and.... well, we are still fighting hornets.
 
Last edited:
MadLib said:
Did I say that we've magically put a stop to all terrorist threats forever? Before 9/11, al-Qaeda had a friendly regime that allowed it to set up terrorist training camps. It was the central leader of the global jihad movement: it's influence stretched from Sudan to Afghanistan. Today, it's been broken up into factions that are literally fighting for their survival wherever they are.
Click to expand...
What you dont seem to get is that Al Qaeda is not a monolithic entity that constantly sends terror teams to attack us, they mutate constantly everytime we try to take them down and in fact their biggest threat is not a direct attack (they've done less than half a dozen in a decade) but rather their ability to influence other groups or individuals to attack America. Iraq, Libya and Syria has been destabilized thanks to our meddling and now even more extreme terror groups that have the same agenda as Al Qaeda will now be poised to attack us, lets not even include American and British citizens who have been radicalized by what we've done and can strike us directly in our own borders...

So no, AQ's influence has grown and youre too blind to see it.

Nonsense. We weren't "meddling" in Afghanistan when al-Qaeda set up a foothold there, and there are plenty of non-interventionist countries that experience terror attacks.
Click to expand...
We were meddling in Afghanistan- you didnt know about the CIA supporting the Afghan warlords when the Soviets attempted an occupation?

Name me some non-interventionist countries that experienced terror attacks then.

Grant said:
What would you do now?
Click to expand...
I could probably start a different thread on that in another forum...
 
PoS said:
What you dont seem to get is that Al Qaeda is not a monolithic entity that constantly sends terror teams to attack us, they mutate constantly everytime we try to take them down and in fact their biggest threat is not a direct attack (they've done less than half a dozen in a decade) but rather their ability to influence other groups or individuals to attack America. Iraq, Libya and Syria has been destabilized thanks to our meddling and now even more extreme terror groups that have the same agenda as Al Qaeda will now be poised to attack us, lets not even include American and British citizens who have been radicalized by what we've done and can strike us directly in our own borders...

So no, AQ's influence has grown and youre too blind to see it.


We were meddling in Afghanistan- you didnt know about the CIA supporting the Afghan warlords when the Soviets attempted an occupation?

Name me some non-interventionist countries that experienced terror attacks then.


I could probably start a different thread on that in another forum...
Click to expand...

Bangaldesh, and Japan I would think are two today.
 
MMC said:
Bangaldesh, and Japan I would think are two today.
Click to expand...

Morning to you MMC! The Japanese attacks were a domestic doomsday cult. Also, intervention needn't be just military.
 
PoS said:
I could probably start a different thread on that in another forum...
Click to expand...
This thread could include a 'what would you do now' question. Do you have idea what the west should do now in response to ISIS Striking a Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels?
 
PoS said:
What you dont seem to get is that Al Qaeda is not a monolithic entity that constantly sends terror teams to attack us, they mutate constantly everytime we try to take them down and in fact their biggest threat is not a direct attack (they've done less than half a dozen in a decade) but rather their ability to influence other groups or individuals to attack America. Iraq, Libya and Syria has been destabilized thanks to our meddling and now even more extreme terror groups that have the same agenda as Al Qaeda will now be poised to attack us, lets not even include American and British citizens who have been radicalized by what we've done and can strike us directly in our own borders...So no, AQ's influence has grown and youre too blind to see it.


We were meddling in Afghanistan- you didnt know about the CIA supporting the Afghan warlords when the Soviets attempted an occupation? Name me some non-interventionist countries that experienced terror attacks then.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can define which 'non-interventionist countries' you're referring to.
 
upsideguy said:
Master, you have said that one day the student would be faster, quicker, stronger, smarter and wiser than the master and on that day, the student will become the master. That day has arrived.....

Clearly you have not yet learned that Iraq was not about tyranny, for if you knew you history, you would realize its never about tyranny with the US. Surely you should be aware of America's long history of befriending, supporting and even installing tyrants and despots. You, master, have not seen the slight of hand of the enemy.

United States support of authoritarian regimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You did not see the head fake of the previous president. He had people believing it was about tryranny, depots and weapons of mass destruction, when it was anything but. He had a much more cleaver scheme brewing that only the wise could see. He was diabolical in that his moves were about his presidential legacy. His neocon friends had convinced him that he could be remember as the great one: the one that changed the middle east forever, but turning out kings, shahs, sheiks and dictators and replacing them with the will of the people by starting a tsunami of democracy in Iraq.

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Policybrief20.pdf
Democracy and Demagoguery in the Middle East | Cato Institute
Islamist Terrorism and Democracy in the Middle East - Katerina Dalacoura - Google Books
The Real Reason for Bush's Invasion of Iraq Is a National Security Secret by Paul Craig Roberts on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent


This odd belief that Iraq, being one of the most educated, yet most repressed of the middle eastern countries would suddenly embrace democracy... and this it would be so successful that dictators, kingdoms and tyrants would give way to the will of the people. Though noble; it was terribly naive. Instead, the hornets nest was kicked and.... well, we are still fighting hornets.
Click to expand...

Once I introduced a client to a friend of mine. I told the client, "watch out for Frank, he's a fast talker." Without a moment's delay, Frank said "yea. but I don't say any extra words."

In your desire to connect what I originally said to Bush you've dragged Iraq back into the discussion, which applies only peripherally. American foreign policy has a long history of trying to mold the politics of various nations to fit American interests. Often the consequences resulted in the unintended consequences of good intentions. Carter didn't support the Shaw of Iran. He was replaced by religious zealots. Through history there is a long list of failed American intervention. We supported Bin Laden in his fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. I'm not saying that we should be totally isolationist but I think the time is over for nation building and preemptive war. If a nation acts aggressively against American interest, I support US aggression with no limits. If however a foreign leader is mistreating his own people, we probably should just let them work it out.

My comments aren't about Bush specifically, as much as you wish they were.
 
Montecresto said:
Morning to you MMC! The Japanese attacks were a domestic doomsday cult. Also, intervention needn't be just military.
Click to expand...

Heya Monte. :2wave: Well humanitarian aid doesn't count. What other intervention would there be?
 
Why does Sen. Graham want to put boots back on the ground?
How does that jive with American opinion opposed to President Obama doing that ?

MMC said:
Heya Monte. :2wave: Well humanitarian aid doesn't count. What other intervention would there be?
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
Why does Sen. Graham want to put boots back on the ground?
How does that jive with American opinion opposed to President Obama doing that ?
Click to expand...

Because he knows in order to win the war with ISIS.....it takes Boots on the Ground.

You mean hows that jive with the Anti War crowd, liberals and Progressives that don't like BO doing that. As many I hear on the Right and Independents, don't have a problem with Others putting Boots on the ground. Just don't want to see US Boots. But then that's what Special Forces are for.....to help Lead the Way!

Yet again.....why is it that BO's top Commanders are telling him he will need to put boots on the ground. These are not Repubs. Did BO not tell them to come up with the Best Options available? Give him the Best Plan? Why do you always avoid BO's own people telling BO he will have to do.....just what he and his base doesn't want him to do.
 
MMC said:
Heya Monte. :2wave: Well humanitarian aid doesn't count. What other intervention would there be?
Click to expand...

Covert operations, subterfuge, intrigue.
 
Montecresto said:
Covert operations, subterfuge, intrigue.
Click to expand...
They claim to have tried that but have not enjoyed any success. None.

What Obama and his leftists want to do is pretend to respond, the red line thrust out chin theory, where Americans put there lives at risk but there is no intention of ever winning. That's the case in Afghanistan as well, and why he o pulled all the troops from Iraq in 2011. Bush got 37 or 38 countries to join him in a Coalition and Barrack Hussein can't get any except that 'pocket full of mumbles such are promises'

How many more will now die as a result of this absolute fool's dithering decisions?
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
They claim to have tried that but have not enjoyed any success. None.

What Obama and his leftists want to do is pretend to respond, the red line thrust out chin theory, where Americans put there lives at risk but there is no intention of ever winning. That's the case in Afghanistan as well, and why he o pulled all the troops from Iraq in 2011. Bush got 37 or 38 countries to join him in a Coalition and Barrack Hussein can't get any except that 'pocket full of mumbles such are promises'

How many more will now die as a result of this absolute fool's dithering decisions?
Click to expand...

The reason why Obama's having difficulties with getting global support is because of American credibility that both he and Bush have diminished. But keep playing grade school with your childish finger pointing and blaming everything on one party. You help our foreign policy problems none. You must be all tired out every day because you carry bigger jugs of water for the GOP then any American I know. In fact, google partisan=Grant in CR.

Oh and btw, you didn't follow the conversation between MMC and I very well, you think my comment on covert action, subterfuge and intrigue was about the Obama administration. Lol, I'm well aware that they have been engaged in that, all over the ME, Ukraine, Venezuela, etc.
 
Last edited:
NIMBY said:
Why does Sen. Graham want to put boots back on the ground?
How does that jive with American opinion opposed to President Obama doing that ?
Click to expand...

You want a President to lead via public opinion polls?
 
Grant said:
Perhaps you can define which 'non-interventionist countries' you're referring to.
Click to expand...

Has Switzerland been attacked by Muslim terror groups?
 
PoS said:
Has Switzerland been attacked by Muslim terror groups?
Click to expand...

No. They have their accounts there. Why would they attack their bankers?

I'm kidding. More just picking on the whole old spy movie theme.
 
Montecresto said:
Whether incompetence or deliberate. Us policies in the ME are fanning the flames of extremists, and destabilising the region. Once again, as both Russia and China correctly warned of three years ago.
Click to expand...

Well, this has been going on for decades. If there was a problem with this policy in regards to the goals of the political class, our regional policy would have changed. Thus, we can conclude that the policy of destabilization is most likely deliberate.
 
Montecresto said:
The reason why Obama's having difficulties with getting global support is because of American credibility that both he and Bush have diminished.
Click to expand...
Barrack Obama pulled the troops from a stable Iraq and, as George Bush foresaw, chaos happened. Why would any countries join Obama when they know he is ill equipped to lead and will follow the whims of the polls? Obama is a fool, and they all know it.
 
PoS said:
Has Switzerland been attacked by Muslim terror groups?
Click to expand...
Not yet, but Muslims are not at all happy with the Swiss people.

You must know that Islamic terrorists have struck countries all over the world, no just 'interventionist' countries, and have also attacked other Muslims throughout the Middle East.

So that begs the questions of why Muslims would kill Muslims in Iraq when it was the Coalition countries who were invading, or why they would murder innocent people in Africa. Claiming it was the consequence of interventionism is the easy answer, or the failed policies of the United States, falls short of actually explaining what's really going on..
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Well, this has been going on for decades. If there was a problem with this policy in regards to the goals of the political class, our regional policy would have changed. Thus, we can conclude that the policy of destabilization is most likely deliberate.
Click to expand...
When has the Middle East been "stable"?
 
MMC said:
It appears we now have a major problem with BO's plans for a coalition, and in giving arms and training to the MB Sunni back Rebels. How do you think this affects what BO and Kerry were stating with regards to Syria? This alliance show Team BO and BO cannot trust who is on the ground in Syria. Which doesn't take into account how they want Assad gone as well. What will others in the newly formed Coalition say now? Will there be commitment? Can this be ignored and with Assad and Russia now knowing this bit of information? What say ye?
Click to expand...

The US hasn't ruled out letting Iran provide the boots on the ground to fight ISIS in Syria.
 
Moot said:
The US hasn't ruled out letting Iran provide the boots on the ground to fight ISIS in Syria.
Click to expand...

Mornin' Moot.
hat.gif
You don't actually think BO and his team will agree, knowing they will take out any of the MB backed Syrian Rebels, do you?
 
Mr. Invisible said:
What does that have to do what I said?
Click to expand...
You said "Well, this has been going on for decades. If there was a problem with this policy in regards to the goals of the political class, our regional policy would have changed. Thus, we can conclude that the policy of destabilization is most likely deliberate". Since you mentioned 'destabilization" I assumed there must have been a time when it was 'stable'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom